EVOLUTION 2008: (FIRST) CRITICAL REVIEW ESSAY ASSIGNMENT
This is the first of several similar assignments. You are to write a review and analysis of a paper from the primary research literature of evolutionary biology. Here are the steps (more on each of them below):
1) Choose an appropriate paper. ‘Appropriate’ means: a) it is interesting to you, b) it is accessible to you, at least in terms of general argument and research approach, and c) it has something explicit to do with evolutionary biology. This is not a trivial task, and you should take some time to do it thoughtfully; it will make everything else easier;
2) Read the paper. Read it closely and, probably, several times, until you understand the premises, arguments, approaches, and results as fully as possible.
3) Write an analytic review of the paper. This should not be simply a summary digest of the paper. It can include commentary, reflection, suggestions, questions, exploration of implications, and, yes, critique. (You may not include all of these things, but must include some.) If you write four or five pages (a reasonable length), typically no more than half should be summary or synopsis
4) Hand in your essay. It is due 20 March, by hard-copy handed in in class, or by email before 5:00 pm. MAKE SURE that, somewhere in what you hand in, you provide a full citation of the paper (for appropriate citation formats, look at the ‘References Cited’ section of papers in any of the research journals.
Further notes on choosing a paper:
The class syllabus includes a list of journals that are particularly worth looking at, but any biological journal will have some papers addressing evolutionary themes. Browse the journals, or you can use the data-bases (below) to search on key-words or thematic terms.
Several of the most important journals are on the library’s shelves, and it is sometimes easier to browse the hard-copy. However, we also have on-line access to most of these and a number of others (NOTE that the on-line versions, in some of the commercial data-bases, are ‘embargoed’ for the most recent 6-12 months; that is not a problem, really, unless you really want to look at most current issues.)
For electronic browsing, go to the Library home-page, and choose the link to ‘Search the databases’. (If you want to find a particular journal, you can also go to the ‘Journals’ link, and search for the journal title; it will tell you if we have electronic access and provide a link). The “BioOne” database includes Evolution to current issue, so that’s a promising place to go. “Academic Search Premiere” has several other important journals, but often not to current issue in full text.. JSTOR has a lot of ecoloogy and evolution journals, but most don't include last couple of years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) is accessible at the journal’s own site. And so forth.
FIRST, look for interesting titles. If a title looks interesting, read the Abstract; if that is interesting and at least generally intelligible, skim the Introduction and Discussion sections to make sure you’ll be able to grapple with the substance of the paper.
There will be a fair number of articles that involve, at the core of their argument, techniques (mathematical or otherwise) beyond your particular expertise. As we’ve discussed, it is NOT essential that you understand everything (all the statistics, analytical procedures, whatever) in order to read and review a paper intelligently. However, it is important to understand enough. You will have to judge whether you are ‘getting it’ sufficiently. (Some evolution papers are intensely mathematical – indeed, some are purely mathematical models, full of partial differential equations and so forth. If you have the math for these and are interested, you’re welcome to go right ahead – but don’t plunge in too deeply at first.)
ALL OF THIS MEANS it's a good idea to choose a paper a few days IN ADVANCE. ULTIMATELY, If you have any questions about the appropriateness of a paper, check with me.
Further notes on analytical/critical review:
As noted above, this is not simply a book-report-style ‘restatement’ or summary of the paper. Of course, you should offer an efficient synopsis of the primary questions (very important), arguments, approaches, conclusions. It is NOT necessary to recite details of methods and analyses unless you wish to comment on them. Ultimately, the most important aspect of a review is your commentary. Why is the research interesting (in general or to you)? How effective was the presentation (what might have made it better, clearer? look carefully at graphical presentations of results; could they have been better?)? Are there logical inconsistencies or problems? Does the research suggest further questions and research possibilities to you, and what do the authors say on this point? (You may not address all of these questions in a particular review; you should ALWAYS try to address the last one.)
As a general guideline (but only a guideline), you might think of devoting about a third of your essay to a synopsis of the study, focusing on the purposes/questions and general approaches and conclusions. Make SURE you have a clear sense of what the authors' questions/hypotheses are; everything should revolve around this. It is not necessary to repeat intimacies of procedure and detailed results; get detailed in summarizing only where you need to in order to make a point. Shoot for something on the order of 5 pages. MAKE SURE you give, somewhere, a full citation to the paper being reviewed. If you refer to particulars from other published sources, cite them as well.